2-21-92-f-503 summary from proposed … opinion on the effects to little colorado ... encourages the...

2-21-92-F-503

SUMMARY BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON THE EFFECTS TO LITTLE COLORADO SPINEDACE

FROM PROPOSED LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON THEBUCK SPRINGS, HACKBERRY/PIVOT ROCK AND BAR-T-BAR ALLOTMENTS

COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST

Date of the opinion: May 6, 1997

Action agency: U.S. Forest Service, Coconino National Forest, Blue Ridge Ranger District

Proposal: To graze livestock in the upper portion of the East Clear Creek watershedon the Buck Springs Allotment and portions of the Hackberry/Pivot Rockand Bar-T-Bar Allotments for the 1997 livestock grazing season.

Listed species: Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) and its designated criticalhabitat in East Clear Creek.

Biological opinion: Non-jeopardy and no destruction/adverse modification of critical habitat.

Incidental take statement:

Level of take anticipated: Because of the widely fluctuating population levels and abilityof the species to move to different areas during high water situations, determining aspecific amount of take that would occur is not possible. Continued degradation ofhabitats is proposed as a surrogate that can be measured.

Reasonable and prudent measures: Three RPMs are included in the document. The firstdeals with reducing risks to the spinedace at Dines Tank, the second addresses evaluationof existing grazing strategies and their effects on the watershed as a whole and the thirdaddresses habitat effects from livestock grazing in 1997.

Terms and conditions: To implement RPM 1, livestock use around Dines Tank would bemonitored to prevent overuse, adjustments to exclosure fencing to reduce livestock's viewof the water be evaluated and livestock will be kept away from the exclosure during dryyears. To implement RPM 2, monitoring data would be used to adjust use of allotmentsto maximize riparian and aquatic habitat recovery. To implement RPM 3, use of pastureswill be limited to non-riparian areas where significant spinedace habitat is present in theriparian area, utilization levels will not exceed Coconino National Forest Plan standardsand guidelines, all crossings of East Clear Creek will be surveyed prior to livestockaccess, and crossing areas should be selected to minimize mechanical damage to banks.

Conservation recommendations:

There are four conservation recommendations. The first deals with determining whatwould be necessary to achieve the Forest Plan goal of having three age classes of woodyriparian vegetation before 2030. The second encourages the continuation of the EastClear Creek Ecosystem Plan development, the third suggests monitoring of elk

2

populations in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and the fourthencourages the Forest Service to identify and correct factors limiting recovery of thespinedace on the Coconino National Forest.

Additional section 7 consultation needed:

Recreation in the meadows of upper East Clear Creek is contributing to the degradationof critical habitat. This activity has not been the subject of consultation.

This biological opinion covers only the 1997 livestock grazing season for the BuckSprings and Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotments. Additional consultation will be neededbefore the 1998 livestock grazing season.

United States Department of the InteriorU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103Phoenix, Arizona 85021

Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513

AESO/SE2-21-92-F-503 May 6, 1997

Mr. Fred TreveyForest SupervisorCoconino National Forest2323 E. Greenlaw LaneFlagstaff, Arizona 86004

Dear Mr. Trevey:

The Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the biological assessment and evaluation (BAE)dated April 5, 1996, for operation of the Buck Springs Allotment and portions of the Bar-T-Barand Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotments on the Coconino National Forest in Coconino County,Arizona. Your April 5, 1996, request for formal consultation was received on April 8, 1996. This document represents the Service’s biological opinion on the effects of continued livestockgrazing on the three allotments on the threatened Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata)and its designated critical habitat in East Clear Creek in accordance with section 7 of theEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the BAE of April 5, 1996,information on the 1997 proposed operations presented in letters from the Forest Service to theService dated March 27 and April 23, 1997, meetings between Coconino National Forest andService personnel, published and grey literature, data in our files, and other sources ofinformation. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in our ArizonaEcological Services Field Office.

CONSULTATION HISTORY

The Coconino National Forest and the Service began discussions about ongoing operations andmanagement of the Buck Springs Allotment in 1992. The existing Allotment Management Plan(AMP) was prepared in 1988 to expire in 1998, although efforts in the early 1990’s to revise theAMP were initiated by the Coconino National Forest. Because the development of the new AMPwas considered imminent, the Forest Service did not wish to enter into formal consultation on theexisting AMP regarding effects to the Little Colorado spinedace (spinedace),

In the early 1990's, a temporary program to address the effects of the Buck Springs Allotmentwas developed between the Forest Service and the Service. Beginning with the 1992 livestockgrazing season, livestock use of pastures containing Little Colorado spinedace habitat wasdeferred. The Coconino National Forest and the Service met each year to review the proposedannual operating plan. In 1993 the four affected pastures (Knolls, Dines, North Battleground,and McCarty) were again deferred. In 1994, with Dines Tank having been excluded from DinesPasture, brief use of that pasture for holding livestock was proposed and allowed. In 1995 theCoconino National Forest and the Service agreed to continue to defer use of the Knolls, North

Fred Trevey, Coconino National Forest Supervisor 3

Battleground, and McCarty pastures for the 1995 grazing season. A field trip to the BuckSprings and Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotments for additional discussions was held in July, 1995. Use of the deferred pastures of the Buck Springs Allotment in 1996 was discussed as well as useof the portions of the Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotment within the East Clear Creek drainage. TheService stressed the need to complete consultation requirements. The development of the newAMP for Buck Springs had been further delayed and the use of only part of the allotment andreductions in stocking levels were of concern to both agencies and the permittee.

On March 19, 1996, the Coconino National Forest met with the Service to discuss the 1996grazing season. Development of the new AMP for Buck Springs will not begin until 1997, andthe need to initiate consultation for the existing management was discussed. The permitteeproposes to use the entire allotment in 1996, including the deferred pastures and run the fullallowed number of livestock. At this time, the Service suggested to the Coconino NationalForest that formal section 7 consultation be initiated as soon as possible.

Two additional allotments whose operations fall within portions of the East Clear Creekwatershed also are included in this consultation. These are the Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotmentand the Bar-T-Bar Allotment. The Hackberry/Pivot Rock allotment received a new 10-year termgrazing permit in 1996. As part of the process, the Coconino National Forest was required tocomplete both National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Actrequirements prior to issuance of the new permit. Because of specific issues relating to thespinedace, those portions of the allotment in the East Clear Creek drainage are included in thisconsultation. In order to maintain an ecosystem approach, the Coconino National Forest alsoevaluated those portions of the Bar-T-Bar Allotment in the East Clear Creek drainage andincluded them in the April 5, 1996, request for consultation.

The Service prepared a draft biological opinion on the effects of the use of these allotments,however, that opinion was never finalized. On March 28, 1997, the Coconino National Forestmet with the Service and requested that the project under consultation be modified to cover onlythe 1997 livestock grazing season. Information on the proposed operation was provided to theService at the meeting and in letters dated March 27 and April 23, 1997. The Service agreed torevise the draft biological opinion to reflect this change in the project. The Service also informedthe Coconino National Forest that in changing the project description, the biological opinionwould no longer cover the operations of the Buck Springs and Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotmentsbeyond this livestock grazing season. Additional consultation would be required for theseallotments in the future.

There are no previous consultations with the Coconino National Forest on the operation of thesethree allotments that addresses effects to the spinedace. There has been some consultationconcerning timber sales and other management activities in the area occupied by the allotmentsand these are discussed in the section below on the environmental baseline.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action for this consultation is livestock grazing in 1977 on the Buck SpringsAllotment and on portions of the Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotments. The proposed action alsoincludes livestock grazing under the existing AMP for the Bar-T-Bar Allotment. Pastures in thelatter two allotments are operated in conjunction with other pastures outside the East Clear Creekwatershed.


The Buck Springs Allotment is located on the Blue Ridge Ranger District of the CoconinoNational Forest in Coconino County, Arizona. The allotment contains 70,986 acres of landsadministered by the Coconino National Forest that range in elevation from 7,720 feet to 7,100feet. The land slopes generally downward from south to north, draining to the Little ColoradoRiver. The allotment contains portions of East Clear Creek, Barbershop Canyon, and LeonardCanyon as well as several smaller drainages. All pastures within the Buck Springs Allotmentcontain at least part of the watershed for East Clear Creek. McCarty Pasture contains part of themainstem of East Clear Creek that is designated critical habitat for the spinedace, and the North,Dines and Knoll Pastures contain parts of Leonard Canyon to the east of East Clear Creek. Mixed conifer forests dominate on the southern portions of the allotment, meadow areas arelargely associated with the drainages, although open, grassy areas also are found in areas thathave been logged and seeded. The topography of the southern areas is characterized by broad,relatively level ridgetops separating the drainages. Drainages begin in meadows and entercanyons that become progressively deeper and less accessible toward the northern portion of theAllotment. Ponderosa pine forest dominates in the northern portion of the Allotment andridgetops are narrower with drainages in deep, narrow, canyons. Here there are fewer meadowareas, except those created by logging or fire.

The Buck Springs Allotment is operated under an AMP signed in 1988. A 10-year permit wasissued in 1994 and will expire in 2004. The present AMP calls for low-intensity grazing using15 pastures. The permitted use is for 746 cow-calf pairs or up to 1,358 yearlings for five monthsin the summer. For the 1997 livestock grazing season, the proposed use is for about 1,300yearlings to graze all 15 available pastures. Each pasture are proposed to be used 20 days or less. The BAE did not state whether time or utilization levels would be the basis for decisions to movethe livestock from one pasture to the next. Livestock would be put out on the allotment in Mayand be removed in October. Livestock would rotate through the pastures from west to east. TheMcCarty Pasture would be used for approximately two weeks and extra riders will be used tokeep livestock out of East Clear Creek. Livestock will be herded across the creek at anabandoned road crossing previously used for this purpose.

A second allotment considered in this consultation is the Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotment. Thisallotment is located immediately west of the Buck Springs Allotment and the two share much ofthe same topography and vegetation types. The Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotment is in twomajor drainages, East Clear Creek and West Clear Creek. The Allotment contains portions ofEast Clear Creek, Miller Canyon, Kehl Canyon and other smaller drainages. Baker, Potato, Kehl,Miller, and Clear Creek pastures in this allotment contain portions of East Clear Creek itself orsignificant tributaries. The Clear Creek Pasture borders with the McCarty Pasture of the BuckSprings Allotment to the north.

A new term grazing permit was issued for the Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotment in January, 1996that allows for the year-long grazing of 760 yearling cattle and 10 horses. Management of thegrazing has changed since 1987. At that time, the East Clear Creek portion of the Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotment was managed as a two pasture system used by 575 cattle forfour months (two months per pasture) every year. Changes in management on other parts of theAllotment and subdivision of existing pastures have altered management on the East Clear Creekportion of the Allotment. Use of Potato, Kehl, and Clear Creeks Pastures containing knownspinedace populations and designated critical habitat is allowed for 10 days every other year. Nouse is allowed in dry years when there is insufficient water in East Clear Creek to supportlivestock operation. For 1997, the Coconino National Forest proposes to rest the Clear Creek,Potato, Baker and Huffer Pastures and graze the Kehl and Miller Pastures for 26 and 32 daysrespectively with 90 percent of permitted numbers. The remainder of the grazing season thelivestock would be in pastures outside of the watershed.


A third allotment considered in this consultation is the Bar-T-Bar Allotment. Portions of threemanagement units of this allotment are within the watershed of East Clear Creek. Themanagement plan issued in 1988 calls for high and low intensity grazing in half of the 17 totalpastures each year. The current permitted numbers are 16,050 animal unit months and aredivided among the management units in the Allotment. Specifics on proposed 1997 use of thisallotment were not provided in the March 27 or April 23, 1997 letters to the Service. Livestockuse of this allotment is considered in this opinion as it was described in the April 5, 1996 BA.

In the Red Hill Management Unit of the Bar-T-Bar Allotment, the Maverick and Red Hillpastures are within the East Clear Creek drainage and are located in the pinyon-junipervegetation type. Elevations are between 6,200 to 6,500 feet. Much of the area was treated tocontrol juniper during the 1950's and 1960's. The Red Hill and Maverick Pastures are grazed by400 to 800 yearlings for two to three weeks in two out of three years. These pastures may begrazed twice in a season if regrowth of grasses is adequate. For the rest of the grazing season, thelivestock are in pastures outside the East Clear Creek watershed. Range clusters established in1984 and read in 1989 and 1994 indicate an increase in overall vegetative cover and cool-seasongrass composition.

The Moqui/Wilkins Management Unit of the Bar-T-Bar Allotment is located in the southernportion of the allotment and has two pastures used in combination by 500 cow/calf pairs. TheMoqui Pasture is dominated by ponderosa pine type and borders East Clear Creek. Access to theCreek is limited by steep canyon walls. This pasture is used from June 1 to August 31 everyother year. The Wilkins Pasture is dominated by juniper, and it is a transition area between theponderosa pine and the woodland/grassland communities. It is used from August 31 to October15 in the same year as the Moqui Pasture and is rested in the following year. In years thesepastures are not used, the livestock use other areas of the Allotment outside the East Clear Creekwatershed. Problems with low vegetative cover and high erosion rates have been identified andtopography prevents livestock from directly accessing East Clear Creek.

The Buckhorn Management Unit is in the southeast portion of the Bar-T-Bar Allotment in anarea dominated by “dog-hair” thickets of ponderosa pine and low forage availability. TheBuckhorn Pasture is used from May 17 to October 14 every year for 260 yearlings. Here also topography prevents livestock direct access to East Clear Creek.

Livestock grazing under existing plans beyond 1997 for the Buck Springs and Hackberry/PivotRock is not covered by this biological opinion. Additional consultation will be required foroperations in future years. For the Bar-T-Bar, additional consultation may not be necessary aslong as there are not changes to the management described in the BA or other reinitiation triggersare not activated.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES

The Little Colorado spinedace was listed as a threatened species on September 16, 1987. Criticalhabitat was designated for portions of East Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek and Nutrioso Creek. Atthe time of listing, populations of the species were known from the East Clear Creek drainage,lower Chevelon Creek, Silver Creek, Nutrioso Creek and portions of the Little Colorado River. Since that time, an additional population was located in Rudd Creek, a tributary to NutriosoCreek. The draft recovery plan for the species was sent out for public comment in August 1994. The recovery plan has not been finalized as of this date.

The spinedace is one of four species of the genus Lepidomeda in the tribe Plagopterini of the


family Cyprinidae. One of these species is now extinct. The Plagopterini also contains twomonotypic genera, Meda and Plagopterus. The Plagopterini are restricted to portions of Arizona,Nevada, New Mexico and Utah (LaRivers 1962, Lee et al. 1980, Minckley 1973).Uyeno and Miller (1973) evaluated the karyotypes of the five remaining Plagopterini species anddetermined that Meda and Plagopterus are more closely related to each other than to theLepidomeda species, and that the spinedace was more distinctly different from the other twoLepidomeda evaluated and probably arose earlier.

Mitochondrial DNA work on the spinedace was initiated in the 1990's and indicated theexistence of three sub-groups identifiable by geographic area (Tibbits et al. undated). The EastClear Creek drainage formed one sub-group, Chevelon Creek the second, and the upper LittleColorado including Nutrioso and Rudd Creeks formed the third. The study concluded that thegenetic patterns seen were likely the result of populations being isolated and differentiated bystochastic events. The East Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek sub-groups were more individuallydistinctive, likely the result of a higher degree of isolation and possess unique haplotypes. Individuals from the Little Colorado River sub-group are more similar and. possibly until veryrecently, there was one population with considerable gene flow when various dams anddiversions increased local isolation. The cause or exact time of the isolation of the three sub-groups is not known (Tibbits et al. undated).

The spinedace was first described in collections made in 1871-1874 from the Little ColoradoRiver drainage by the Wheeler Survey and was formally described in 1874 by E.D. Cope (Millerand Hubbs 1960). It is a small fish, adult males and females are generally less than 100millimeters (mm) in total length and there is little size differentiation between the sexes, althoughfemales may on average be longer than males. The back and upper sides are olivaceous, bluishor lead grey with the venter being white and the sides silver with vertical black lines (Miller1963).

The spawning period for spinedace is from May to June or July (Blinn 1993, Blinn and Runck1990, Miller 1961, Minckley 1973, Minckley and Carufel 1967) although some females havebeen found to contain mature eggs as late as October (Minckley and Carufel 1967). Informationfrom spinedace kept in a pond at the Flagstaff Arboretum indicate that adults there spawned threetimes in 1993 and 1994 (Blinn et al. 1994), but it is not certain if individual females spawn morethan once.

Spawning at the Arboretum occurred during the day in the stream that feeds into the Arboretumpond. Small schools (4 to 40 individuals) would leave the pond and move into the stream.Gravel substrates were utilized and sediments were cleared from spawning sites. No spawningwas observed in pools containing fine sediments, or within areas with larger gravel and cobblesor aquatic vegetation. Water temperatures in the spawning areas averaged 21° centigrade (Blinnet al. 1994). Fry hatched about five days later, after which they moved to the shallow areas of thepond, usually near floating algal mats or other aquatic vegetation (Blinn et al. 1994). Factorsaffecting spawning that were identified included changes to water levels, turbidity, photoperiodand water temperature.

Young of the year spinedace reach half their adult size within two months. The average lifeexpectancy, based on recapture information from the Arboretum pond, is three years (Blinn et al.1994).

As with most aquatic habitats in the southwest, the Little Colorado River basin contained avariety of aquatic habitat types and was prone to rather severe seasonal and yearly fluctuations inwater quality and quantity. Both mountain streams and lower gradient streams and rivers have


provided habitat for the spinedace. Residual pools and spring areas are important refuges duringperiods of normal low water or drought. From these refuges, spinedace are able to recolonizeother stream reaches during wetter periods. This ability to quickly colonize an area has beennoted in the literature (Minckley and Carufel 1967) as well as in observations by others familiarwith the species. Populations seem to appear and disappear over short time frames and this hasmade specific determinations on status and exact location of populations difficult. This tendencyhas been observed by both researchers and land managers (Miller 1963, Minckley 1965,Minckley 1973) and led to concerns in the 1960's and 1970's for the species survival.

As would be expected for a species adapted to fluctuating physical conditions, the spinedace isfound in a variety of habitats (Blinn and Runck 1990, Miller 1963, Miller and Hubbs 1960,Nisselson and Blinn 1989). Whether occupancy of these habitats reflect the local preferences ofthe species or its ability to tolerate less than optimal conditions is not clear. Availableinformation indicates that suitable habitat for the Little Colorado spinedace is characterized byclear, flowing pools with slow to moderate currents, moderate depths and gravel substrates(Miller 1963, Minckley and Carufel 1967). Cover from undercut banks or large rocks is often afeature. Spinedace have also been found in pools and flowing water conditions over a variety ofsubstrates, with or without aquatic vegetation, in turbid and clear water (Denova and Abarca1992, Nisselson and Blinn 1991). Spinedace are mid-water dwellers. During high water events,adult spinedace will utilize the lower end of riffles and the upper ends of pools and are positionedlateral to the current (Minckley 1984). It is during these high water events that recolonization ofother areas of the stream can occur.

Aquatic and terrestrial insects form the basis of the spinedace diet (Runck and Blinn 1993), butthey will also consume algae and detritus (Blinn and Runck 1990, Minckley and Carufel 1967). Spinedace are opportunistic feeders, using whatever is seasonally available (Runck and Blinn1993). Foraging may take place both in the water column and on the bottom (Minckley andCarufel 1967).

The native fish fauna of the Colorado River Basin is largely composed of endemic species. TheLittle Colorado River fish fauna is typical of Basin fish faunas. Besides the spinedace, thespeckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), bluehead sucker (Pantosteus discobolus), Little ColoradoRiver sucker (Catostomus sp.), roundtail chub (Gila robusta) and Apache trout (Oncorhynchusapache) were found in the mainstem and tributaries of the Colorado River Basin. In the last 100years, at least 10 non-native fish species have been introduced into spinedace habitats. Theseinclude rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) andgolden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucus). Recent surveys in East Clear Creek have documentedthe presence of those three non-native species and brown trout (Salmo trutta) in the watershed (Denova and Abarca 1992). Data from research experiments and field observations indicate thatat least the rainbow trout is a predator and potential competitor with the spinedace (Blinn et al.1993). Data on interactions between other native or non-native fish species and spinedace havenot been obtained.

As previously mentioned, the populations of spinedace have a tendency to appear and disappearfrom locations within their range. These disappearances can be quite sudden, in as little as a fewweeks, and last several years. In the 1960's and early 1970's, known populations were so few thatthe species appeared to be threatened with extinction (Miller 1964, Miller and Lowe 1964,Minckley 1965, Minckley 1973). Between the surveys of the early 1960's and those of the1970's, the spinedace reappeared in most of the known range (Minckley and Carufel 1967) butpopulations declined in the late 1970's. In surveys from the early 1980's, five extant populationswere identified (Minckley 1984) including two new locations in Nutrioso Creek. The SilverCreek population has not been collected in several years. Populations in East Clear Creek have


declined since 1983 (Denova and Abarca 1992) although there were increased reports ofoccurrence in the drainage after the flooding in 1993.

The spinedace was listed as a threatened species with habitat alteration and destruction, predationand competition with non-native aquatic organisms, and recreational fishery management actionslargely responsible for the need to list the species. Land management activities in the range ofthe species have not changed significantly since the species was listed and there have been veryfew section 7 consultations with the Forest Service or other Federal agencies conducted for thisspecies. State and private lands make up a considerable part of the habitat for this speciesoutside the East Clear Creek drainage. No habitat conservation plan for the species has beenproposed or is in development. The State of Arizona has acquired some private lands in theupper Little Colorado River drainage for wildlife purposes and there are managementpossibilities on those lands that could benefit the spinedace. Arizona also owns a portion of thelands supporting the Chevelon Creek population.

Since the spinedace was listed, the Rudd Creek population was discovered, and the Silver Creekpopulation may have been lost. A refugium population for Rudd Creek fish has been establishedat the Flagstaff Arboretum. No refugia populations for the other two genetic units exist. Therecovery plan for the spinedace has been drafted but not yet finalized by the Service.

The status of the spinedace has not significantly improved since listing. The protections thatcould be afforded the species by Arizona's purchase of lands and water rights in the Rudd Creekarea may result in some improvements to habitat that would benefit the species. The issue ofcompetition and predation on spinedace by introduced trout species has been partially addressedin a biological opinion dealing with stocking of rainbow trout for recreational purposes. Whilethe result of that consultation may have effects that reduce the risk to spinedace from newlyreleased trout, it does not address the resident trout populations. Research into the extent of thecompetition and predation between spinedace and trout is scheduled to start in 1996.

It is very difficult to document the actual status of spinedace populations. The apparentlyinherent wide fluctuations in population size make it difficult to assess the health of eachpopulation and difficult to determine the effects of specific land management activities. Thepossible loss of the Silver Creek population is a significant event because it represented anisolated population and the newly discovered Rudd Creek population is part of the upper LittleColorado River complex. The Little Colorado-Nutrioso Creek-Rudd Creek population appearedto be holding its own in 1993, however increases in non-native trout in some areas was noted. The Chevelon population had declined significantly by 1993 (AGFD 1994) from much highernumbers in 1990-91 (AGFD 1992). The East Clear Creek population had declined by 1993(AGFD 1994), but apparently increased with the flooding in 1993-94. Drought conditions in1996 may reverse that gain and put additional stress on all known populations.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Status of the Species in the Action Area

The East Clear Creek population of spinedace has been recorded primarily from the mainstem ofthe creek and in portions of Leonard Canyon. As stated previously, this population fluctuateswidely and is usually found in small, isolated pockets and not over longer reaches of the streams. In recent years, the only reliable location to find spinedace in the East Clear Creek drainage wasin Dines Tank in Leonard Canyon. Other reasonably reliable sites include the "95" Crossing andJones Crossing on the mainstem. Critical habitat for the spinedace has been designated in East


Clear Creek above and below Blue Ridge Dam but not in Leonard Canyon.

As stated above, spinedace populations in the East Clear Creek drainage are not large or welldistributed. Surveys in 1990-91 found spinedace only in Leonard Canyon both in and aboveDines Tank (Denova and Abarca 1992). In 1993, spinedace were found in two sites on themainstem both above Blue Ridge Reservoir (Jones Crossing and Cold Water Spring) and atDines Tank (AGFD 1994). Since 1993, spinedace have been located below Blue RidgeReservoir (pers. com Jim Burton, Arizona Game and Fish Department), near the "95" Crossing,Jones Crossing, near Poverty Draw, Dines Tank, and West Leonard Canyon (pers. com. TomCain, Coconino National Forest )

Spinedace habitats in the East Clear Creek drainage have been altered by the construction ofdams on the mainstem and tributaries. Examples are the Blue Ridge Reservoir, Knoll Lake, andBear Canyon Lake. Land management activities including timber harvest, livestock grazing,road construction and maintenance, recreational development and usage, fire management, andinter-basin water diversions also have altered the habitat. These activities have affectedwatershed function, runoff patterns, peak flows, seasonal flows, riparian vegetation, wet meadowfunctions, bank erosion, siltation, and water quality. Wildlife and fisheries management largelyassociated with providing hunting or fishing opportunities has altered the faunal component ofthe habitat. Introduction of non-native trouts and baitfish has increased competition for availableresources. Crayfish (Procamberus sp.) also have reached the drainage through some humanmechanism. Considerable discussion has ocurred about the historic and present abundance of elk(Cervus elaphus) in the East Clear Creek drainage and their effect on the existing riparian andaquatic habitats.

The formal consultation that was conducted on the Coconino National Forest Plan included thespinedace as a proposed threatened species. There have been no formal section 7 consultationswith the Coconino National Forest involving spinedace for activities in the East Clear Creekdrainage. Informal consultations on the Bray Salvage Timber Sale, Moqui Draw Timber Sale,the Victorine 10-K block, and the Starlight Pines land exchange have disclosed no effects tospinedaces. Formal intraService consultation with Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)as the applicant on the stocking of non-native trout into Knoll Lake and Blue Ridge Reservoirdetermined a no-jeopardy with reasonable and prudent measures guided by terms and conditionsfor incidental take.

The present condition of the upland, riparian and aquatic habitats is an important component ofthe environmental baseline. Site specific information on present conditions throughout thedrainage is not available. There is, however, information on functional and dysfunctional streamconditions and watershed conditions in parts of the drainage that are of use in development of thebaseline.

As part of the ongoing East Clear Creek Ecosystem evaluations, a map of all streams in thedrainage was prepared showing the functional, at-risk, and dysfunctional stream reaches.Definitions used by the Coconino National Forest for these terms are from Medina et al. (1995). These definitions are briefly defined as follows:

C Functional stream reaches are those in which processes observed are those that move thesystem to a higher state of dynamic equilibrium.

C Dysfunctional stream reaches are those in which processes observed are those that movethe system in a trend toward system degradation.


C At-risk stream reaches are those which are in danger of becoming dysfunctional.

C Processes are those involving vegetative, hydro/geomorphic, soil quality/erosion, airquality and animal effects components used to determine functionality.

The functional stream reaches were mostly those in steep canyons where ungulate access are very limited, other management actions are limited, and where the physical characteristics of thereach make it more resistant to effects of upstream activities. At-risk and dysfunctional areaswere in the flatter, southern portions of the drainage, especially in meadow areas. Approximately11 percent of the streams in the drainage are considered dysfunctional, 15 percent are at risk and74 percent were considered functional. The areas where spinedace have been found recentlyabove Blue Ridge Reservoir are in dysfunctional condition. Dines Tank and the area below BlueRidge Dam are in functional condition, and West Leonard Canyon is at-risk.

Within the project area, dysfunctional reaches occur in the mainstem above Blue RidgeReservoir, upper portions of General Springs Canyon, upper Dick Hart Draw, most of BuckSprings Canyon, and in portions of West and Mid Leonard Canyons. At-risk areas in KehlCanyon, Miller Canyon, General Springs Canyon, Quien Sabe Draw, Bear Canyon, MerrittDraw, Barbershop Canyon, Dane Canyon, Yeager Canyon, and West Leonard Canyon are alsowithin the allotments considered in this consultation. Functional reaches include Potato Draw,Quaking Aspen Canyon, lower Kehl Canyon, Miller Canyon, Bear Canyon, Houston Draw,Barbershop Canyon, East Clear Creek below Blue Ridge Dam, Yeager Canyon, and parts ofLeonard Canyon and Buck Springs Canyons.

The Kehl and Leonard Canyons sub-watersheds were evaluated in 1993 (Hydro Science 1993)under a contract with the Forest Service. This contract report provides specific information onstream reaches most important to the spinedace in the East Clear Creek drainage. Relevantinformation from this source is summarized in the following discussion.

The Kehl Canyon watershed analysis area included the mainstem of East Clear Creek through thePotato, Kehl, and Clear Creek Pastures of the Hackberry-Pivot Rock Allotment and the McCartyPasture of the Buck Springs Allotment.

Natural erosion risk for the watershed is low for most of the area, except around the KinderSpring, Poverty Draw, and Potato Lake drainages where potentials are moderate to severe due togeological factors. Here, watershed conditions are generally satisfactory although conditions arenot reaching potential. However, the low ground cover in meadows is of concern due todecreasing vigor of the plants that may further reduce cover levels. The stream reaches in theseareas range from functional to dysfunctional condition. New, active gully formation is occurringnear Cold Water Spring in the Clear Creek Pasture. Overall, stream stability is 13 percent poor,70 percent fair, and 17 percent good in the 18.7 miles of stream cataloged (Hydro Science 1993). Streambeds contain little sediment with fine materials being washed out of the system.

East Clear Creek and its tributaries in the Kehl Canyon watershed are ephemeral. Most of theflows are the result of runoff from snowmelt in March and April, with localized contributionsfrom summer monsoon rains. Peak flows can be quite high and the most recent high flows werein 1993. Scattered pools are found in the streams when there is no flowing surface water. Although these pools are often isolated, they provide the only fish habitat available during dryperiods.

The Leonard Canyon watershed analysis area included the mainstem and tributaries of LeonardCanyon including Buck Springs Canyon. The portion of the watershed east of the canyon itself is


not included in the allotments under consideration here and is on a different National Forest. Thewestern portion of the watershed is on the Buck Springs Allotment in the Knolls, Riparian,Horse, Dines, and North Pastures.

Natural erosion risk in the Leonard Canyon watershed is generally slight, with severe riskoccurring at the upper ends of the drainages. Watershed conditions are generally satisfactoryalthough many areas are below potential. Buck Springs Meadow is marginally stable. Streamreaches in these upper areas are largely in dysfunctional condition, or are at-risk. Stream stabilityis 94 percent fair and 6 percent good in the 17.2 miles of stream evaluated (Hydro Science 1993). Sediment load in these streams is low.

With no flow gages on Leonard Canyon, specific flow data is not available. However, it can beassumed that the rainfall and runoff patterns are the same as for the nearby Kehl Canyonwatershed. Scattered pools, such as Dines Tank, persist through the seasonal dry periods.

Some historical background on riparian conditions is contained in the Hydro Science (1993)report. The present conditions of streams in the area is not the condition that would have existedwithout the overgrazing that began in the late 1800's and continued through the middle of the1900's. Even if some stream reaches are considered "functional" today, it does not mean they arein good condition relative to the pre-overuse baseline. A wide, gravel-cobble wash is a verydifferent system compared to a narrow, meandering stream channel bordered by riparianvegetation.

The streams in the allotment areas are now ephemeral. While this may be the baseline condition,the amount of time when there are no flows may have increased as bank storage declined due toerosive gullying and downcutting, and runoff increased as vegetation was reduced. This has hada significant effect on the availability and quality of fish habitat in the stream reaches underconsideration in this consultation.

Timber harvest and post-sale activities have had a significant effect on the watersheds throughchanges in local runoff patterns, creation of roads, and actions to provide forage and water forungulates in logged areas. Providing forage on the uplands and ridgetops was intended to drawlivestock out of the overused riparian bottoms. In the process, non-native grasses such as orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata) became established and the population of elk increased as they madeuse of new resources. The presence of these new resources enabled development andimplementation of new range management programs.

In addition to grazing and timber activities, recreational use of riparian and meadow areas haseffected these areas. Soil compaction, bank damage, especially from off-road driving, and waterquality issues are involved. These activities occur at varying levels throughout the area but areespecially significant in the meadows of upper East Clear Creek. Recreation use of the uppermeadows in the drainage is not part of this consultation.

In summary, aquatic and riparian conditions in the East Clear Creek areas for which studies havebeen done indicate that past overgrazing of the watersheds has resulted in considerable changesto the historic conditions of these habitats and thus the habitat available for the spinedace. TheLeonard Canyon watershed has undergone perhaps less incision of stream channels than the KehlCanyon watershed. However this is likely the result of different geologic and topographicconditions and not from different historic uses. In some areas, the channels are moving toward,or have achieved, stability although it is not the same as the pre-overuse stability. Recovery ofthe streams and associated floodplains and riparian areas to those historic conditions may beextremely difficult, if not impossible, to attain.


For the spinedace in the East Clear Creek watershed, existing conditions provide habitat inisolated pools for most of the year. Movement within streams is difficult and can only take placeduring high water events. Access for the species to other streams where there is suitable habitatavailable also is considerably more difficult. Existing habitats are less stable than before due tochanges in seasonal flows relating to bank storage or base flows. Spinedace behavior is tailoredto making use of as much habitat as possible during wet periods and, during dry periods when thehabitat is reduced, there are more opportunities for survival of a few individuals. With lesshabitat available for expansion, and less persistent pool habitats in dry periods, there is anincreased risk of localized extinction. The Kehl Canyon watershed sub-population is especiallyat risk because Blue Ridge Reservoir prevents any spinedace from accessing this area from thelower reaches of the stream. Although the Leonard Canyon sub-population has the potential toreach East Clear Creek, that junction is below Blue Ridge Dam and does not ease the situationfor the Kehl Canyon watershed population. The situation for the Leonard Creek fish may not bemuch more secure, especially if the spinedace found below Blue Ridge Dam originate from theLeonard Canyon sites and there is no self-sustaining population in East Clear Creek.

Effects of the Action

The effects of livestock grazing on watersheds and streams has been well documented in thepublished and in the grey literature (i.e. Meehan 1991, Platts 1990). The BAE provided by theCoconino National Forest contained a summary of the types of effects to aquatic and ripariansystems that can be attributed to ungulate grazing. The Hydro Science (1993) report addressedthe effect that past overuse of the available resources by livestock (and possibly elk) has had onthe riparian and aquatic habitats in a portion of the area of the allotments under consideration. The Service recognizes that the Coconino National Forest has been working to improve rangemanagement and range conditions on these allotments. However, it must be understood thatthere is no livestock management scheme that entirely eliminates effects to riparian and aquatichabitats except for the removal of livestock from the watershed. In areas that have been sosignificantly affected and altered by past over-use, even allowing managed use to continue mayimpede any possible recovery in the system. Use of livestock as a tool to promote recovery ofdegraded rangelands may not be possible in programs to improve riparian and aquatic conditionsin such degraded conditions.

Because of their placement in the head of the watershed, conditions in the streams within these three allotments cannot be attributed to upstream activities beyond the control of the CoconinoNational Forest. Also, there only is a limited amount of non-Federal land in the area of theallotments and, with the exception of the operation of Blue Ridge Dam, the Coconino NationalForest has management authority over the majority of the lands involved. Thus outside entitieshave a limited effect on the resources utilized by the spinedace.

Buck Springs Allotment

For 1996, livestock use is proposed to begin on the western portion of the allotment and moveeast. The BAE identifies five populations of spinedace in this allotment. Three populations arein Leonard Canyon, including Dines Tank, in the Knolls and Dines Pastures; in BarbershopCanyon in the North Battleground Pasture; and in East Clear Creek, Jones Crossing, in theMcCarty Pasture. In the Dines Pasture, Dines Tank is fenced to prevent livestock access, butthere is access to the stream above and below the exclosure. Water may or may not be availableoutside the exclosure in the stream. The exclosure is small enough that heavy use of the grassesin the adjacent areas could affect local runoff into Dines Tank. However, there are no presentindications of accelerated upland erosion in the vicinity (Hydro Science 1993). Runoff may also


transport fecal material to Dines Tank causing water quality problems that may adversely affectthe spinedace. The site in Barbershop and the two other Leonard Canyon sites are not accessibleto livestock because they are in steep canyons. There is always a potential for livestock to reachalmost anywhere on an allotment, and the yearlings that would be run on the allotment may bemore prone to stray. Having riders with the herd should reduce this potential but may notcompletely eliminate it. Indirect effects would be changes in runoff from removal of surfacevegetation and potential increases in nutrients from fecal material transported to the stream. Theproposed action is to move the livestock "quickly" through the pastures, although no rationalewas provided in the BAE that would govern the moves. One would assume that utilization ratesgiven in the Coconino National Forest Plan would be the governing rule, however this is notstated in the BAE.

Direct impacts to spinedace may occur in the McCarty Pasture since livestock will have to crossEast Clear Creek to access pastures to the west. The proposed schedule is to use McCartyPasture for two weeks beginning about May 17. The proposed crossing point is in an area"usually" dry and located away from known spinedace habitat. Due to heavy winter snows, useof this pasture may coincide with the last of the spring runoff period. If livestock are not keptaway from East Clear Creek, damage from trampling of banks, overuse of available forage,damage to pools from livestock drinking and reduced water quality many occur. Even withriders to control up the yearling cattle there is a risk of some individual livestock reaching poolseven if the designated crossing area is dry. The permittee's compliance with restrictions toprotect East Clear Creek will be monitored and documented.

The reach that would be used for the crossing is in a part of the stream that exhibits a widevariation in stability (Hydro Science 1993) and in most places appears to be aggrading. There aresome areas with more stable, vegetated banks that have higher value to wildlife and possibly tofish. These types of areas are very susceptible to overuse of vegetation and mechanical damage.

Information on the habitat conditions along other drainages in the remaining pastures within theBuck Springs Allotment are not available outside of the map showing functional anddysfunctional reaches. Most of these are either at-risk or functional. Records of spinedace fromthese streams are lacking. It can be assumed that the same type of effects from livestock usewould occur in those areas as has been described above for those streams not in canyons. Theentire drainage area covered by the Allotment drains into the mainstem of East Clear Creek eitherabove or below Blue Ridge Reservoir. Effects to runoff patterns and seasonal flows that arecontinued by the use of the watershed have effects on conditions downstream. Critical habitatfor the spinedace is located in East Clear Creek as are populations of spinedace.

Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotment

Livestock use of the Clear Creek, Potato, and Kehl Pastures would have direct effects to EastClear Creek from trampling, effects to pools from livestock watering and trampling and nutrientloading. Heavy grazing use by elk and livestock has been observed (Hydro Science 1993) andthis does not allow for meadow recovery. This reach of East Clear Creek is dysfunctional andthere is active erosion, headcutting and gullying occurring in the reach. There are some stableareas and also areas showing improvement in stream conditions. This may be the results ofchanges in livestock management already implemented.

In 1997, only the Miller and Kehl Pastures would be used. Livestock would cross East ClearCreek from west to east cutting through the extreme southwest corner of Clear Creek Pasture andcrossing on the Kehl Pasture side of the fenceline. This is clearly a reduction in use over therecent past, but still allows for direct effects to an area identified as not being in functional


condition and where adverse effects from livestock use has been identified (Hydro Science1993). The portion of East Clear Creek in the Kehl Pasture is largely in a canyon area anddifficult to access. Access by livestock to this area is possible, but little is known about thehabitat conditions for spinedace within that reach.

Use of pastures in the Hackberry/Pivot Rock Allotment may have effects to riparian and aquatichabitats in East Clear Creek below the northern boundary of the Allotment through changes inseasonal flows and runoff. These effects become additive with the effects originating in theMcCarty Pasture of the Buck Springs Allotment and can affect the entire reach of critical habitatabove Blue Ridge Reservoir. The spinedace population in this portion of the drainage is morevulnerable to local extirpation since there are no immigration routes available for otherpopulations to recolonize the stream. Activities that do not provide for recovery of the availablehabitat increase the risk of extirpation to the spinedace.

Bar-T-Bar Allotment

All the management areas and pastures in the Bar-T-Bar Allotment that are in the East ClearCreek drainage do not have direct effects to streams in the drainage due to lack of access forlivestock. Effects are indirect and involve watershed and runoff considerations. Specificinformation on the watershed conditions in the Allotment were not provided, although limitedinformation in the BAE indicated range conditions have improved under the recent managementchanges. The reach of East Clear Creek contained in this allotment is considered in functionalcondition.

Interrelated and Interdependent Ef fects

Livestock grazing management requires that roads, fences, and water sources be maintained. Roads also are a part of the un-related recreation and timber access, but fences and water sourcesare directly related to grazing. Livestock management has contributed to the increase in elkpopulations through programs to increase water and forage availability implemented through thetimber program. Elk intense use of riparian areas and meadows may retard progress towardrestoration of functioning conditions. Elk populations have been reduced significantly in the lastfew years, but effects at some level continue.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, local, or private actions that are reasonablycertain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actionsthat are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they requireseparate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.

State activities affecting the recreational fishery in the East Clear Creek drainage have a Federalnexus via Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration programs and thus do not fall under thiscategory. The construction of Knoll Lake and Blue Ridge Reservoir within the drainage occurredprior to the listing of the spinedace. There may or may not be any Federal nexus that wouldrequire consultation on these structures in the future. It is clear however that the operation of thedams is not under the jurisdiction of the Coconino National Forest, however there may beauthority vested in some other Federal agency. At this time, no changes to dam operations havebeen identified that would be reasonably certain to occur.

CONCLUSION


After reviewing the current status of the Little Colorado spinedace, the environmental baselinefor the action area, the effects of the proposed implementation of the livestock grazing programsdescribed in the biological opinion and supporting documents on the three allotments and thecumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the actions, as described in the BAEand this opinion, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Little Coloradospinedace and are not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat in EastClear Creek.

The Service has determined that livestock grazing in the East Clear Creek watershed, as proposedin the existing AMPs has significant adverse effects to the spindace and its critical habitat. Theseadverse effects have been reduced by actions specific to the 1997 livestock grazing season. There is no certainty that these effects can be reduced in future years. Because of this concern,the Service would like to address, in general, the rationale for this determination. The analysis isbased on effects to both survival and recovery of the spinedace.

At the time of listing, there were four populations of spinedace known to occur. Now, with thelikely loss of the Silver Creek population, there are three. Of the remaining populations orsubgroups, Chevelon Creek and Little Colorado River-Nutrioso-Rudd Creeks are primarilylocated on non-Federal lands. These subgroups are also located lower in their respectivedrainages and there are significant upstream and downstream effects from water diversions,dams, and other activities. Only the East Clear Creek subgroup has a significant presence onFederal land and has far fewer non-Federal activities affecting the habitat. Even considering thepotential benefits to spinedace habitat from the Arizona Game and Fish Department lands, thelongterm status of the Chevelon Creek and Little Colorado River-Nutrioso-Rudd Creeksubgroups is more uncertain than that of East Clear Creek. It cannot be said that the East ClearCreek subgroup is stable or that visible improvements are being made. The majority of theindividuals are in Leonard Canyon and Dines Tank. While not as at risk from livestock as theupper East Clear Creek portion, it remains vulnerable to stochastic events that could eliminateeither individuals or habitat. Without a sustainable, stable population in at least two parts of thedrainage, the potential for loss of the Leonard Canyon individuals is significant for both thesubgroup and the species as a whole. The draft Recovery Plan specifically stated that loss of anyone of the four populations significantly increases the risk of extinction. Silver Creek mayalready have been lost. East Clear Creek is one of the genetic subgroups known and there is norefugia population to sustain this genetic unit if something was to happen in the drainage. Thestatus of the Chevelon Creek subgroup is precarious due to land ownership and location factors,and even though the Little Colorado River-Nutrioso-Rudd Creeks subgroup is more robust, it isvery fragmented and subject to continued habitat alteration and degradation.

The preceding paragraph primarily looked at effects to survival. Recovery of any species iscompromised if the survival of the species is more in doubt. Some degree of resiliency isrequired for recovery to occur and resiliency is lost as probability of extinction rises. Recoveryof the spinedace requires preservation of existing genetic variability, restoration of habitats, andestablishment of refugia to replicate subgroups. Unless adequate habitat in suitable condition isavailable to sustain spinedace in at least three locations within the East Clear Creek drainage, thesubgroup cannot be considered recovered and thus the species cannot be recovered. Thelivestock use of upper East Clear Creek, an area identified in the draft Recovery Plan as a refugiaarea, is preventing restoration of the habitat and directly affecting individuals in a way thatcompromises use of the area as a refuge.

Critical habitat is designated to identify those areas essential to the survival and recovery of aspecies. For the spinedace, 44 miles of critical habitat was designated. Of that amount, 82percent is on Federal lands, 70 percent on the Coconino National Forest and 30 percent on the


Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Upper East Clear Creek represents 36 percent of the criticalhabitat on National Forest lands and 29 percent of the total. It is the critical habitat segmenthighest in the watershed and subject to the fewest adverse effects from human activities. It isalso an identified location for a refugia for the East Clear Creek subgroup. Unless the habitatdegradation in this area of critical habitat is halted and reversed, it cannot function in that role.

Critical habitat identifies constituent elements essential to the conservation of a species. Areasnot currently containing all of these elements, but with the capability to do so in the future, mayalso be essential for the long-term recovery of the species. Actions to restore constituentelements to areas of critical habitat that have been degraded are part of the recovery effort. Formany native fish species in the American Southwest, there are no pristine, undegraded habitatsremaining. Critical habitats are then, almost by definition, deficient in one or more constituentelements. The Service understands that the majority of the damage to the aquatic and riparianhabitats of East Clear Creek predate the listing of the spinedace as a threatened species and thedesignation of critical habitat. It is also clear that most of the occupied critical habitat in EastClear Creek is less than fully functional and therefore lacks some constituent elements. Datafrom studies conducted for the National Forest Service (Hydro Science 1993) indicate thatrestoration of historic habitat conditions in the upper East Clear Creek drainage is very likely notachievable, however the system is moving toward a degree of healing and stability at some newlevel. It is hoped that this stability would improve the status of the spinedace in this stream,therefore reducing risks of extirpation. This healing is being set back by the continued use of thestream area for livestock grazing. This is evident in observations made of livestock useremoving vegetation and disturbing banks in the vicinity of headcuts on the Hackberry/PivotRock Allotment. These observations were made in 1993 and reported by Hydro Science in theirreport to the Coconino National Forest, after the major changes in the management of theallotment had been implemented.

Compounding the effects of livestock use are two other uses. Elk also graze on these allotmentsand have effects to riparian and aquatic habitats that are additive to those caused by livestock. Elk numbers are being reduced by management of hunting and may play less of a part in thefuture. Recreational use of the allotment, especially the headwaters areas of East Clear Creek hascaused considerable damage to streams and riparian areas. This use is largely unmanaged andwill continue to be a problem that impedes recovery of these streams.

INCIDENTAL TAKE

Sections 4(d) and 9 of the Act, as amended, prohibit taking (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species offish or wildlife without a special exemption. Harm is further defined to include significanthabitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantlyimpairing behavioral patterns such a breeding, feeding and sheltering. Harass is defined asactions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantlydisrupt normal behavior patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding orsheltering. Incidental take is any take of listed animal species that results from, but is not thepurpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or theapplicant. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to andnot intended as part of the agency action is not considered a prohibited taking provided that suchtaking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.

The Service wishes to advise the Forest Service that this incidental take statement does notinclude take that is associated with recreational uses of the meadows of upper East Clear Creek. That take is not covered by any biological opinion. The earlier consultation on the forest plan did


not include an incidental take statement, so although the findings for the spinedace in thatconsultation were non-jeopardy and no destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat,that consultation is not adequate to address the recreational activities that are degrading themeadows. The Service advises the Forest Service to address this situation as soon as possible.

Operations of the Buck Springs and Hackberry-Pivot Rock Allotments in 1997 may still result inthe direct taking of one or more individual spinedace. It is not possible at this time to determinea specific level for this take because of the variability in both size and location of spinedacepopulations in the drainage. It is not anticipated that this take would be significant.

In addition to the direct take of individuals, operations in the two allotments will have directeffects on all aquatic habitats in the East Clear Creek drainage. As with the take of individuals, itis not possible to provide a specific level for this take. The amount of take that occurs each yearwill depend upon the time any area is grazed, length of time any pasture is used, distribution oflivestock across the pasture, effectiveness of monitoring utilization, and effects of the previousyear's grazing use.

There will also be indirect take from the use of the watershed in the three allotments for livestockin the form of changes to runoff and seasonal water flows to the streams. Because of the pastactions and the damage to the riparian and aquatic habitats resulting from them, it is very difficultto separate out any new effects resulting from the continuation of livestock grazing on thewatershed.

There is some incidental take associated with the Leonard Canyon portion of the drainage. Direct access to the streams here is partially blocked by topography, thus some areas may beaccessible. Dines Tank is the only place in the East Clear Creek drainage where surveys havereliably found spinedace over a period of several years. The Tank is not particularly large and isin the aggrading channel of Leonard Canyon. Although it is fenced to exclude livestock, thefence is very near the tank and any livestock in the immediate area can see the water. Livestockhave access to the creek above and below the Tank. Allowing livestock use of Dines Pastureincreases the risk of nutrient loading to Dines Tank, may result in overuse of forage in thevicinity of the water and, in dry years, increase the risk of fence failure as livestock try to reachthe water.

The amount of take is not quantifiable, nor can it be measured directly. The Service hasidentified a surrogate measurement to use in determining when incidental take has beenexceeded. Measurement of watershed and riparian conditions in areas near or upstream ofspinedace habitat will serve as a surrogate measurement of take. Any new degradation to thewatershed or riparian habitats that has an effect on spinedace habitat would exceed the level ofincidental take. The Service understands that natural events may also have a significant effect onriparian resources. Each time such an event occurs, the Forest Service should evaluate the post-event conditions and discuss the findings with the Service.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT M EASURES

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary andappropriate to minimize take of the Little Colorado spinedace:

1. Measures will be taken to reduce the risk to the spinedace population at Dines Tank.

2. Measures will be taken to evaluate ongoing grazing strategies and identify alternatives.


3. Measures will be taken to minimize potential for habitat damage during the 1997livestock grazing season.

Terms and Conditions:

1. To implement reasonable and prudent measure 1:

a. Livestock use of the upland area around Dines Tank will be monitored to ensurethat overuse does not occur.

b. Adjustments to the exclosure fence to prevent or minimize livestock view of thewater should be evaluated and if appropriate, implemented within three years.

c. During dry years, livestock should be herded or otherwise maintained away fromthe exclosure. No grazing of grasses around the exclosure by livestock will occurin years of less than normal precipitation.


a. Information obtained through appropriate monitoring will be used to adjust use ofthe allotments to maximize the rate of riparian and aquatic recovery.


a. If pastures containing spinedace habitat are to be used for more than transit oflivestock, use of the pasture will be limited to non-riparian areas when significantspinedace habitat is present within that reach of creek. Utilization levels shouldnot be higher than those specified in the Coconino National Forest Plan or inother planning documents and should foster an increase in watershed condition.

b. When livestock crossings of East Clear Creek are made, the crossing area willfirst be surveyed by Forest Service personnel to ensure there are no poolscontaining spinedace in the area of the crossing. If spinedace are found, nocrossing in that area is permitted.

c. When crossing areas are selected, locations least likely to suffer mechanicaldamage or increased bank instability should be selected. The area should also bedry, or if water is present, the area should be surveyed for spinedace. If spinedaceare present, the crossing site will not be used.

d. The Coconino National Forest will provide the Service with a report on use of theBuck Springs and Hackberry/Pivot Roct Allotments before the beginning of thenext grazing season. This report should include information on how long andwhen pastures were used.


CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7 (a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further thepurpose of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered andthreatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities tominimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, tohelp implement recovery plans, or to develop information. We recommend that:

1. The Forest Service consider what program would be necessary to achieve the goal ofthree age classes of riparian woody species before 2030.

2. The Forest Service continue with the East Clear Creek Ecosystem Plan development todetermine the desired future functionality of the watershed and streamcourses.

3. The Forest Service work with AGFD to monitor the effects of elk on riparian areas.

4. The Forest Service identify factors that limit recovery potential of spinedace on landsunder their jurisdiction and work to correct them.

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects orbenefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementationof any conservation recommendations.

REINITIATION STATEMENT

This concludes formal consultation on the action described in your request. As provided by 50CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agencyinvolvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) theamount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agencyaction that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not consideredin this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effectto the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listedor critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount orextent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pendingreinitiation.

If there are any questions regarding this biological opinion or we may assist in any way, pleasecontact Lesley Fitzpatrick or Ted Cordery in our Arizona Ecological Services Office.

Sincerely,

Regional Director

cc: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NMField Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Office, Phoenix, AZProject Leader, Arizona Fisheries Resources Office, Pinetop, AZProject Coordinator, Arizona Fisheries Resources Office, Parker, AZDirector, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ


LITERATURE CITED

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1992. Survey of Little Colorado spinedace distribution,habitat and abundance. Section 6 project completion report for Project E5-3, job 4,segment 3. Phoenix.

________________________________?. 1994. Little Colorado spinedace 1993 field surveydraft summary report.

Blinn, D.W. 1993. Preliminary research report on Little Colorado spinedace at the FlagstaffArboretum Pond, Flagstaff, Arizona. Report to Parker Fishery Resources Office, Fishand Wildlife Service.

__________. and C. Runck. 1990. Importance of predation, diet, and habitat on the distributionof Lepidomeda vittata: a federally listed species of fish. Report submitted to theCoconino National Forest by the Department of Biological Science, Northern ArizonaUniversity, Flagstaff.

_________., C. Runck, and D.A. Clark. 1993. Effects of rainbow trout predation on LittleColorado spinedace. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 122:139-143.

_________., T. Pradetto, and C. Runck. 1994. Annual report on spawning, reproduction, growthand development, diet, and behavior of Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) inthe Arboretum Pond at Flagstaff, Arizona, during 1994. Report to Coconino NationalForest, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Denova, B., and F.J. Abarca. 1992. Distribution, abundance, and habitat for the Little Coloradospinedace (Lepidomeda vittata) in the Coconino and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forestsalong East Clear Creek and its tributaries. Report submitted to Coconino National Forestand Fish and Wildlife Service on Project E5-3, job 4. Arizona Game and FishDepartment, Phoenix, Arizona.

Hydro Science. 1993. Watershed condition assessment: of the Kehl, Leonard Canyon, and upperWillow Creek watershed on the Apache-Sitgreaves and Coconino National Forests. Report for contract 43-8167-2-0500 for the Coconino National Forest.

LaRivers, I. 1962. Fish and fisheries of Nevada. Nevada Game and Fish Commission. CarsonCity, Nevada.

Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. Publication #1980-12. North CarolinaBiological Survey.

Medina, A.L., M.B. Baker Jr.,and D.G. Neary. 1995. Desirable functional processes: Aconceptual approach for evaluating ecological condition. In: D.W. Shaw and D.M. Finch,tech. coord., Desired future condition for Southwestern riparian ecosystems: Bringinginterests and concerns together. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-272. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and


their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland.

Miller, R.R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest. Papers of theMichigan Academy of Science, Arts and Let. 46(1960):365-404.

___________. 1963. Distribution, variation, and ecology of Lepidomeda vittata, a rare cyprinidfish endemic to eastern Arizona. Copeia. 1963:1-5.

___________. 1964. Extinct, rare and endangered American freshwater fishes. Proceedings ofthe XVI Congress of Zoology. 8:4-16.

___________., and C.L. Hubbs. 1960. The spiny-rayed Cyprinid fishes (Plagopterini) of theColorado River system. Number 115, Misc. pub., Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

___________., and C.H. Lowe, Jr. 1964. An annotated check list of the fishes of Arizona. Pages 133-152 In: Lowe, C.H., Jr. The Vertebrates of Arizona. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, Arizona.

Minckley, C.O. 1984. Current distribution and status of Lepidomeda vittata (the Little Coloradospinedace) in Arizona. Submitted to Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix,Arizona.

Minckley, W.L. 1965. Native fishes as natural resources. Pages 48-60, In: J.L. Gardner. Nativeplants and animals as resources in arid lands of the southwestern United States. Contr. 8,Comm. Desert and Arid Zones Res., A.A.A.S.

_________. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

Minckley, W.L. and L.H. Carufel. 1967. The Little Colorado spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata, inArizona. The Southwestern Naturalist. 12(3): 291-302.

Nisselson, C.L. and D.W. Blinn. 1989. Aquatic habitat assessment for Lepidomeda vittata inEast Clear Creek, Arizona. Report to Coconino National Forest from Department ofBiological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.

____________________. 1991. Aquatic habitat assessment for Lepidomeda vittata in EastClear Creek, Arizona. Final Report to Coconino National Forest from Department ofBiological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangeland grazed by livestock: a guidanceand reference document for biologists. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, Nevada.

Runck, C. and D.W. Blinn. 1993. Seasonal diet of Lepidomeda vittata, a threatened cyprinidfish in Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist. 38(2):157-159.

Tibbits, C.A., A.C. Weibel, and T.E. Dowling. undated. Mitochondrial DNA variation withinand among populations of the Little Colorado spinedace. Report to Coconino NationalForest, contract #030492-D17-178. Department of Zoology, Arizona State University,Tempe, Arizona.

Uyeno, T. and R.R. Miller. 1973. Chromosomes and the evolution of the Plagopterin fishes


(Cyprinidae) of the Colorado River system. Copeia. 1973(4):776-782.

2-21-92-f-503 summary from proposed … opinion on the effects to little colorado ... encourages the...

Documents